Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with

free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-

19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the
company's public news and information website.

Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related

research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this
research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other
publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights
for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means
with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are
granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre
remains active.
Pathophysiolo gy
of Diarrhea in C alves
D.M. Foster, DVM, MS*, Geof W. Smith, DVM, MS, PhD

KEYWORDS
 Rotavirus  Cryptosporidium  Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli
 Coronavirus  Torovirus

Infectious diarrhea remains one the biggest health challenges in both the beef and
dairy industries. More than 20% of beef cattle owners feel that calf diarrhea has a sig-
nificant impact on their economic productivity,1 and diarrhea accounts for more than
half of all calf mortality on dairy farms.2 Currently, enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli
(ETEC), Cryptosporidium parvum, rotavirus, and coronavirus appear to be the most
significant infectious causes of calf diarrhea. Research into the pathophysiology of
these organisms may ultimately lead to more specific treatment and control
recommendations.

ENTEROTOXIGENIC ESCHERICHIA COLI

Epidemiologic studies of both beef and dairy calves have implicated ETEC as the
major cause of neonatal diarrhea occurring in the first 4 days of life; however it rarely
leads to diarrhea in older calves or adult cattle.3–6 Immediately after birth, oral expo-
sure to fecal coliforms leads to colonization of the gut with the normal commensal
flora, and these organisms continue to move caudally through the gastrointestinal
tract with ingesta.7,8 If environmental contamination is high, ETEC organisms are
ingested at this same time and are able to produce disease caused by the presence
of two virulence factors, K99 fimbria and heat stable toxin. Because nonpathogenic E
coli are extremely common, fecal cultures as a diagnostic test are of little value unless
the presence of these two virulence factors can be demonstrated.

Attachment of Escherichia coli to Intestinal Epithelium

Attachment to the intestinal epithelium allows the bacteria to maintain residence in the
small intestine and multiply instead of being passed though with the ingesta. Studies
have shown that up to 80% of the organisms are attached in calves with ETEC diar-
rhea, instead of only 10% to 20% in normal calves.3,9,10 This attachment is mediated
by the presence of fimbrial antigens. The antigen most commonly associated with

Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North

Carolina State University, 4700 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: derek_foster@ncsu.edu (D. Foster).

Vet Clin Food Anim 25 (2009) 13–36

doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2008.10.013 vetfood.theclinics.com
0749-0720/08/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc.
14 Foster & Smith

ETEC diarrhea in calves is K99, which is more appropriately referred to as F5.6,11 The
F41 and 987P antigens can also be found in calf ETEC isolates, often in conjunction
with F5.12,13 Because the K99 antigen is only expressed at an environmental pH level
of less than 6.5, the distal small intestine is the initial site of colonization. This is
because the pH level of the intestinal fluid increases as it moves caudally, and it
only reaches this threshold at the ileum.14–18 The ability of K99 ETEC to bind to the
small intestinal epithelium is age dependent and gradually decreases from 12 hours
of age to 2 weeks of age. However, there is not a precipitous drop in the binding ability
that would explain the age resistance to ETEC.19 The attachment of ETEC allows the
bacteria to colonize the ileum, proliferate, and spread proximally through the small
intestine.3,17,18,20 Once established in the gut, ETEC produces heat stable toxin
leading to secretory diarrhea.

Heat Stable Toxin–Mediated Secretory Diarrhea

Classically, mechanistic discussions of enterotoxin-mediated secretory diarrhea have
focused on the cholera toxin of Vibrio cholerae and the heat labile toxin (LT) of E coli.
These are both significant causes of diarrhea in humans, and have a similar mecha-
nism of action involving increases in intracellular cyclic adenosine monophospate
(cAMP), which activates the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator
(CFTR) and ultimately causes secretion of chloride. This movement of chloride ions
osmotically draws water into the lumen of the intestine, leading to diarrhea.21,22 These
models of human diarrhea have less bearing on toxin-mediated secretory diarrhea in
the calf because the heat stabile toxin (STa) of ETEC is the primary mediator.11,23,24
STa is an 18- or 19-amino-acid peptide that is secreted by many strains of ETEC; how-
ever, the production can vary up to 1,000 fold between strains when cultured under
identical conditions.25,26 After being secreted by E coli, STa binds to guanylyl
cyclase-C (GCC), a brush border membrane enzyme that is present throughout the villi
and crypts.27,28 The concentration of GCC appears to be highest in the lower villous,28
but this may vary by species,27 and its precise location on the villous has not yet been
determined in the calf. In contrast to rodents and humans, in which concentrations of
GCC decrease in the distal small intestine,28 GCC is present throughout the gastroin-
testinal tract of calves and is concentrated in the ileum.29,30 In both mice and humans,
the density of this receptor declines after birth,26,31 and it remains present in pigs until
up to 7 weeks of age.32 No specific research has been done detailing the expression of
GCC at various ages of calves, however inoculation with STa induces diarrhea in
animals up to 15 days of age.25 This indicates that GCC is present until at least 2
weeks of age and down-regulation of the receptor is not the reason for age-dependent
resistance to ETEC diarrhea.
Binding of STa to GCC leads to the production of intracellular cyclic guanylyl mono-
phospate (cGMP), which acts as a second messenger to activate cGMP-dependent
protein kinase II (cGKII). This kinase phosphorylates CFTR, inducing movement of
the protein to the cell surface and activation, which in turn leads to chloride
secretion.33 This up-regulation of chloride secretion osmotically pulls water into the
intestinal lumen, which outweighs the absorptive ability of the villous (Fig. 1).21
Blocking the CFTR dramatically decreases intestinal fluid secretion, indicating the
importance of this protein in the pathogenesis of ETEC diarrhea. However, secretion
is not completely prevented,34 indicating that STa may have additional effects in the
small intestine.
Further research has shown that STa can induce bicarbonate secretion through a ty-
rosine kinase that is independent of the GCC/cGMP/CFTR pathway, and this secreted
bicarbonate can act as an osmotic agent to pull water into the lumen of the
 Calf Diarrhea 15

Fig. 1. Frame 1: K99 ETEC binds to an intestinal epithelial cell, and heat stable toxin (STa) is
secreted, which binds to the receptor GCC. The enteric nervous system becomes activated by
the secretion of STa, but the mechanism of this activation is unclear. At this point, CFTR is
not active. Frame 2: STa binds to GCC, which converts guanylyl triphosphate (GTP) to
cGMP. cGMP activates cGKII to phosphorylate the CFTR, and the CFTR moves to the luminal
surface and is activated, leading to chloride (Cl) secretion. Frame 3: Secreted STa activates
tyrosine kinase through an unknown pathway, which leads to bicarbonate (HCO3) secretion.
STa also directly inhibits the sodium–hydrogen exchanger, decreasing the movement of so-
dium (Na) and hydrogen (H) across the membrane.

intestine.35,36 The receptor and other messengers in this pathway have not been
elucidated. An opposing model of STa-induced diarrhea has also been proposed
that is not based on fluid secretion caused by movement of chloride or bicarbonate,
but which instead is caused by decreased fluid absorption. In addition to activating
the CFTR, STa inhibits the apical Na-H exchanger, leading to failure of sodium absorp-
tion. This failure of sodium absorption decreases fluid movement from the intestinal
lumen to the interstitial space. The importance of this mechanism of ETEC diarrhea
in calves is unknown because this has been most conclusively shown in the
duodenum and proximal jejunum of rodent models.37,38
Similar to expression of K99, production of STa is pH dependent. When the environ-
mental pH is less than 7.0, toxin production is severely limited.18,39 Therefore, toxin
production is maximized in the distal small intestine because the pH level is greatest
in this segment. Although it has not been directly investigated, it can be theorized that
STa-mediated secretion of bicarbonate and inhibition of the Na-H exchanger would
have the net effect of alkalinizing the proximal small intestine. This would create an
environment more hospitable to ETEC promoting its spread to the proximal small
intestine.
The autonomic and enteric nervous systems are known to be involved in the
secretory response to cholera toxin through the actions of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2),
5-hydroxytriptamine (5-HT), and vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP).40–42 STa-me-
diated secretion may also involve local reflex arcs in the enteric nervous system (ENS);
however, it does not involve the autonomic nervous system.43 Most of the support for
this idea comes from studies that inhibit the ENS and subsequently reduce the
secretory effect of STa.44–46 The neurotransmitters critical in these responses are nitric
oxide (NO) and VIP,40,46 whereas PGE2 and 5-HT are not involved.41 Furthermore,
a well-defined example of the influence of the ENS in ETEC is its role in exacerbating
16 Foster & Smith

STa-mediated secretory diarrhea in states of malnutrition,47–49 however the impor-

tance of these mechanisms in the calf is unknown because this was found in a
rodent model of human disease.
Ultimately, the pathophysiology of ETEC is dependent on several factors. First is
the exposure to and ingestion of the organism. Once ingested, ETEC must survive
the acidic pH of the abomasum. This is facilitated in neonatal calves because the
pH level of their abomasum ranges from approximately 6 to 7, which enables survival
of ETEC. The pH of the abomasum decreases to less than 2 by 5 days of age, which is
low enough to kill ETEC strains.18,50 Once ETEC reaches the ileum, both the K99
antigen and STa are expressed as a result of the increased pH level, yet this may occur
sooner because the pH level can be higher in the proximal GI tract of neonatal calves.
K99 allows attachment of the organism, leading to colonization of the ileum. Produc-
tion of STa induces secretion and may increase the luminal pH level, which would
make the normally acidic proximal small intestine more hospitable for the organism.
ETEC bacteria then move proximally toward the duodenum, and secretion dramati-
cally increases, leading to diarrhea and dehydration.18,51

Treatment of Escherichia coli Diarrhea

The focus of treatment for ETEC diarrhea should be to remove the organism from the
gastrointestinal tract and combat dehydration until normal absorption is restored.
Based on an extensive review on the topic by Constable in 2004, the only antibiotic
with documented efficacy and legal use in food animals in the United States is
amoxicillin trihydrate, which is recommended at a dose of 10 mg/kg, orally every 12
hours. Ideally, this would only be used in calves with signs of systemic illness caused
by diarrhea.52
Oral electrolyte solutions remain the mainstay of on-farm fluid replacement therapy
for most calves with ETEC diarrhea. Based on the pathophysiology of the organism,
two characteristics of oral replacement fluids are critical. The first is to maximize
sodium absorption through means other than the Na-H exchanger, because this
may be inhibited by STa. Most oral electrolyte solutions take advantage of the
sodium-glucose cotransporters to improve sodium absorption, which bypasses
the inhibited Na-H exchanger. Although this will not reduce the secretory response
(and diarrhea), it will improve the hydration status of the calf.21
Second, increasing the pH of the abomasum and proximal small intestine favors the
survival of ETEC, as discussed above. Hence, oral replacement fluids with bicarbon-
ate as the alkalinizing agent may favor the proliferation of ETEC, expression of the K99
antigen, and secretion of STa.18 If secretion of bicarbonate caused by STa is a signif-
icant component of the disease in calves, as it appears to be in some models, the
additional bicarbonate load from an oral electrolyte solution could even exacerbate
the secretory response. Because of the potential harm of bicarbonate, oral electrolyte
solutions containing acetate are recommended for treatment of ETEC diarrhea.
Additional approaches for increasing the abomasal pH are discussed in the article
by Marshall found elsewhere in this issue.

CRYPTOSPORDIUM PARVUM

C parvum is one of the most commonly isolated gastrointestinal pathogens from dairy
calves and immunosuppressed humans53 and is a significant cause of waterborne
diarrhea outbreaks.54 Infection occurs when oocysts are ingested from the environ-
ment. Once in the host, the organism goes through a complicated life cycle that
involves multiple stages. The cycle starts with exposure to gastric acid and bile salts,
 Calf Diarrhea 17

leading to excystation of the oocyst to the first life stage, the sporozoite. The sporo-
zoites invade the intestinal epithelial cells of the ileum, where the infection is
typically concentrated, but they can infect the gastrointestinal tract anywhere from
the abomasum to the colon. The sprorozoites create an invagination of the luminal
membrane, allowing them to maintain an extracytoplasmic but intracellular location
known as a parasitophorous vacuole. From this location, the sporozoites transform
into trophozoites. At this stage, asexual reproduction occurs and Type I meronts
are formed. Merozoites are then released into the lumen. These organisms can form
additional Type I meronts or Type II meronts, which form micro- and macrogamonts.
Micro- and macrogamonts reproduce sexually to create thin- and thick-walled
oocysts. The thin-walled oocysts lead to autoinfection, whereas the thick-walled oo-
cysts pass out with feces to contaminate the environment. These oocysts are infective
immediately, and remain viable in the environment for extended periods of time.55–57
C parvum oocyst shedding occurs as early as 3 days of age, peaks at 2 weeks of
age, and can continue to occur in adult cattle. However, diarrhea caused by C parvum
rarely occurs after 3 months of age.57–63 After infection, clinical signs peak at 3 to 5
days and last 4 to 17 days.60,64 Some studies have shown that up to 100% of dairy
calves become infected with C parvum,58,65 and become the major source of environ-
mental contamination because calves shed up to 107 oocysts per gram of feces.60
Shedding in beef calves is much less frequent and occurs in less than 5% of calves.59,66
Calves appear to be resistant to subsequent infection after the initial episode of C par-
vum diarrhea.63 Severity of diarrhea and incidence of clinical signs in calves shedding
oocysts can be variable within and between farms, leading some to question the true
importance of C parvum as a primary pathogen;67 however, it has been repeatedly iso-
lated independent of other known pathogens in clinical cases.57

Malabsorptive Diarrhea Caused by Cryptospordium parvum

Infection with C parvum has been shown to induce severe villous atrophy (Fig. 2) in
calves and other food animal species.64,68,69 This atrophy is caused by the loss of
villous enterocytes and the subsequent retraction of the villous to maintain a continu-
ous epithelial barrier. Crypt hyperplasia also occurs in an effort to replace the lost
epithelial cells, however in severe infections, disruption of the epithelial barrier can
occur despite these efforts.64,70,71 Furthermore, both cell culture and animal models
have shown an increase in epithelial permeability after C parvum infection when the
loss of epithelial surface area is taken into account.70,72 In spite of this well recognized
consequence of C parvum infection, the precise mechanism of cell loss remains
elusive. It is still not understood whether the cell loss is an effect of the pathogen or
is part of the host response in an effort to resolve the infection.
There are two potential mechanisms for the increased loss of epithelial cells in
C parvum infections. The first is a direct cytotoxic effect of the organism on the intes-
tinal epithelium, but this is not well supported by the current literature. In a few cell
culture models of C parvum infection, the cytosolic enzyme, lactate dehydrogenase,
has been shown to leak into the cell media.73–75 However, this may simply be caused
by the deformation of the apical membrane by the organism as it attaches to and is
enveloped by the membrane.70
The second and more likely mechanism for cell loss is apoptosis because apoptotic
cells are consistently found in both in vitro and in vivo models of infection.76–82 Yet there
is evidence in cell culture models that the loss of epithelial cells is minimized by the in-
hibition of apoptosis during the infection,78,83 and many infected cells are not apopto-
tic.79 Specifically, research has shown that the activation and inhibition of apoptosis is
18 Foster & Smith

Fig. 2. Normal and C parvum–infected intestinal mucosa from a calf ileum at 100 magnifi-
cation. (A) Normal calf ileal mucosa. (B) and (C). Calf ileal mucosa experimentally infected
with C parvum. Note the blunting of the villi and the hyperplasia of the crypts. There are
more severe histologic changes in (C), because the villi are more atrophied and the mucosa
no longer completely covers the lamina propria (hematoxylin and eosin).

related to the life stage of C parvum, and that apoptosis is inhibited during the tropho-
zoite stage when the organism is most dependent on the host, but then increases later
during the infection. Furthermore, the incidence of apoptosis will vary over time
between infected cells and uninfected neighboring cells. This may be beneficial to
the host to limit spread of the organism, limit the severity of cell loss, and/or speed clear-
ance of the organism.83 Pharmacologically induced apoptosis in infected cell cultures is
also prevented, indicating that apoptosis mechanisms are actively inhibited,78,83 which
has been shown to be mediated by NF-kB.78 Additional research is needed to elucidate
the ultimate beneficiary of this apoptotic regulation: the organism, to maintain its intra-
cellular habitat, or the host, to limit cell loss and spread of infection.
Irrespective of how or why epithelial cell loss and villous atrophy occurs, this leads
to a malabsorptive diarrhea. The net absorption of fluid is caused by the movement of
sodium coupled with either chloride or other nutrients in the villous tip versus the se-
cretion of anions in the crypts. Therefore, absorption is impaired because of the loss of
the mature villous epithelial cells and their associated transporters as well as a de-
crease in total surface area.64,70,84,85 Absorption of sodium and water can still occur
to some degree in the crypts when coupled with glucose or neutral amino acids
(eg, glutamine), which can be used to improve absorption of oral rehydration solu-
tions,86,87 but overall absorption of carbohydrates, lipids, and amino acids is
reduced.88–91 This malabsoption leads to diarrhea that can range from very mild to
life threatening, depending on the dose of organism and coinfection with other
pathogens. However C parvum has not been shown to decrease overall growth in
calves once the infection has resolved.55
 Calf Diarrhea 19

Prostaglandin-Mediated Diarrhea Due to Cryptospordium parvum

Epithelial cell loss, villous atrophy, and malabsorption cannot account for all the fluid
loss seen in C parvum infections, and studies have documented a prostaglandin-me-
diated anion secretion (Cl or HCO3) and inhibition of neutral NaCl absorption
(Fig. 3). The prostaglandins PGE2 and prostaglandin I2 (PGI2) are found at higher
concentrations in infected tissue, and blocking the secretion of these prostaglandins
reverses the anion secretion and inhibition of NaCl absorption.70,84 However, in vivo,
inhibition of prostaglandins exacerbated the villous atrophy, indicating that this
approach is unlikely to be useful therapeutically.92 The source of prostaglandins in
the infected tissue is unknown, but is believed to be leukocytes that infiltrate the
lamina propria in the infection. Macrophages appear to be the most likely source be-
cause they invade the lamina propria after infection and can induce prostaglandin
secretion from mesenchymal cells,64,70,92,93 whereas inhibition of neutrophil migration
into infected tissue had no effect on prostaglandin synthesis.94 Furthermore, NO,
which has been shown to be important in defense against C parvum infections,95
stimulates prostaglandin-mediated secretion when NO production is augmented by
arginine supplementation.96

Cl /HCO3

C. parvum

+ NaCl

PGE2

Ach/VIP

Ca+/cAMP

PGE2
PGI2
Enteric nerve
Mϕ
Fig. 3. Infection of intestinal epithelial cells with C parvum induces the epithelial cell to se-
crete PGE2 and leads to activation of macrophages (M4) in the lamina propria. This leads to
secretion of PGE2 and PGI2 from the mesenchymal cells. PGI2 activates the enteric nervous
system to secrete acetylcholine (Ach) and VIP. The secretion of Ach, VIP, and PGE2 leads to
an increase in intracellular calcium and cAMP, which activates anion secretion (Cl and
HCO3) and inhibits neutral sodium and chloride absorption (NaCl).
20 Foster & Smith

The mechanism of action of the two prostaglandins differs because PGE2 acts on
the enterocyte directly, whereas PGI2 exerts its effect through the ENS. PGI2 causes
75% of the secretion in C parvum infection by stimulating the nicotinic ganglia and the
VIP-ergic and cholinergic motor neurons that innervate the intestinal mucosa. Prosta-
glandin secretion ultimately leads to increases in calcium and cAMP that increase
anion secretion and decrease sodium absorption.42,70,92 Inhibiting the effects of
prostaglandins on the ENS is a potential method of decreasing the diarrhea associ-
ated with C parvum without exacerbating the villous atrophy. Specifically, peptide
YY, which is naturally found in the intestinal epithelium, is a potent inhibitor of VIP
and can abolish the secretory response to PGI2.97 Furthermore, if the inhibition caused
by prostaglandins can be blocked, the intestine is capable of absorbing NaCl and
water despite the villous atrophy, indicating that the transporters are fully functional,
even in the immature enterocytes.85–87

Treatment and Prevention of Cryptospordium parvum Diarrhea

Because of the privileged location of C parvum, drug delivery can be difficult. Drugs in
the lumen of the intestine may pass through without actually reaching the organism,
whereas drugs that penetrate the intestinal epithelial cell would concentrate in the
cytoplasm instead of the extracytoplasmic parasitophorous vacuole. Despite these
challenges, multiple drugs have been studied as potential treatments with varying
degrees of success, and none are currently licensed for calves in North America.55,57
Halofuginone is licensed for prevention of C parvum infection in Europe when admin-
istered during the first 7 days of life. Unfortunately, clinical trials have not shown it be
consistently effective. When used as directed in a study of 31 bull calves, there was no
difference in the incidence of or treatment rates for diarrhea between the treated and
control calves. There was a significant delay in shedding of oocysts, but upon
withdrawal of the drug, the treated calves began to shed a similar number of organ-
isms. There was no difference in milk intake, weight gain, or age at weaning between
the two groups.98 Another study in which halofuginone treatment was initiated at 7 to
10 days of age saw no difference in the number of calves shedding oocysts or in the
incidence of diarrhea. However, the total number of oocysts shed was reduced for the
7 days during treatment as well as the following 7 days. Oocyst shedding then
rebounded and was greater than in control animals 21 days after the start of
treatment.99 Other studies have shown more favorable results in which the incidence
of diarrhea and excretion of oocysts was reduced. Re-excretion of oocysts after
stopping treatment continued to be a problem, but was less if a lower dose was
used.100–102 In an experimental infection, the only difference noted with treatment
was a decrease in the number of calves dying. However, calves began excreting
oocysts after treatment was discontinued, even though they had been housed individ-
ually and reinfection was unlikely. This indicates that halofuginone is cryptosporidio-
static but is unlikely to effectively kill oocysts.103 Halofuginone appears to be
effective at decreasing oocyst shedding only when it is being administered. It may
or may not reduce clinical signs in the calf, and has not been consistently shown to
be effective as a treatment for C parvum diarrhea.
Paromomycin was shown to be effective in one trial of experimental infection as
a prophylaxis for C parvum infection. The drug was administered 1 day prior to infec-
tion and continued for a total of 11 days. Oocyst shedding and diarrhea were
decreased, but calves began to shed organisms at the end of the treatment period,
and the shedding continued after treatment was stopped.104 Decoquinate has also
been used to control C parvum in calves, but trials have not consistently shown it to
reduce diarrhea or oocyst shedding in calves.57,99,105 In a study from Turkey,
 Calf Diarrhea 21

azithromycin was shown to be effective as a treatment of calves that were know to be

shedding C parvum when it was administered at a dose of 1,500 mg/calf/day for 7
days. Treatment decreased oocyst shedding and diarrhea, and improved weight
gain.106 However, the cost of azithromycin in the United States would likely prevent
its use to treat cryptosporidiosis at this time. In a small study, activated charcoal
with wood vinegar liquid was effective in stopping diarrhea and oocyst shedding
when administered after the start of experimentally induced C parvum diarrhea. This
effect was noted 24 hours after addition of this product to the milk replacer.107 It
remains to be seen if this effect can be duplicated in a large-scale field trial.
Similar to chemotherapeutic agents, both active and passive vaccination have not been
consistently successful in preventing C parvum infection, diarrhea, and oocyst shed-
ding.108 Vaccination of dry cows with whole organisms109 or a recombinant protein110
both reduced oocyst shedding and clinical signs, but neither have been validated under
field conditions. An oral vaccine to be given to calves at birth prior to colostrum
administration showed promise initially,111 but was ineffective in a field trial.112,113
Because of the questionable benefit of mass medication or vaccination for control,
prevention should be focused on decreasing exposure to the organism by appropriate
hygiene and husbandry. Because C parvum is a zoonotic agent, appropriate personal
hygiene is also important for public health and farm employee safety.112 Specific
treatment for C parvum–infected calves also cannot be recommended in the United
States at this time, although the extralabel use of azithromycin or activated charcoal
with wood vinegar appears promising. In general, treatment should be focused on
appropriate fluid therapy and supportive care because most calves will recover
from cryptosporidiosis if there is not an overwhelming infection or coinfection with
another pathogen.

ROTAVIRUS

Rotavirus was one of the first identified viral causes of diarrhea, and was initially known
as neonatal calf diarrhea virus. Subsequently, it has been found throughout the world
and has been identified as a significant pathogen of children and most other
mammals.114,115 Antibodies to rotavirus can be found in more than 90% of
unvaccinated cattle,116 and the virus was isolated from 94% of dairy calves at a large
dairy and calf ranch during the first 2 weeks of life.117 It has also been isolated from
approximately 20% of calf diarrhea samples,118,119 and from at least one calf on
63% of farms.120 Calves become infected after ingesting the virus from fecal contam-
ination of the environment, because the virus remains quite stable if the temperature
does not get near freezing. The virus typically affects calves less than 3 weeks old, with
a peak incidence at 6 days of age. After ingestion of the virus, the incubation period is
approximately 24 hours, with resolution of diarrhea in uncomplicated cases in 2
days.115 Classically, rotavirus diarrhea is thought to be primarily a malabsorptive
diarrhea, but recent evidence indicates that there is also a toxin-mediated secretory
component as well.

Malabsorptive Diarrhea Caused by Rotavirus

Similar to C parvum, rotavirus preferentially targets the mature villous enterocytes and
spares the crypts, generally causing moderate villous damage. The virus attaches to
these cells via specific receptors and invades through an unknown mechanism. The
virus replicates within the cells, leading to enterocyte death. Malabsorption will then
occur because of the loss of surface area, and unabsorbed glucose and other
22 Foster & Smith

carbohydrates create an osmotic load pulling fluid into the lumen. Furthermore, fluid
secretion from the crypts increases the amount of fluid in the intestinal lumen relative
to villous absorption, which leads to diarrhea.21,114,115 However, the severity of clinical
signs does not always correlate with histologic damage to the villi. This has led to
speculation that there may be another mechanism contributing to the diarrhea seen
with rotaviral infections, and that enterocyte damage is less critical than previously
believed.
In the mid-1990s, a viral enterotoxin was demonstrated to be crucial to the
pathogenesis of rotaviral diarrhea.121 This was the first time an enterotoxin could be
identified in a viral diarrheal pathogen, and this changed our fundamental understand-
ing of rotavirus diarrhea.122 The rotavirus protein, nonstructural glycoprotein 4 (NSP4),
was found to induce a dose- and age-dependent diarrhea that is clinically similar to
rotavirus diarrhea. Unlike the bacterial enterotoxins, diarrhea due to NSP4 is unrelated
to cAMP, cGMP, or CFTR.123,124 The protein is initially produced during intracellular
viral replication and acts on the infected cell. It is secreted or released upon cell death,
and acts in a paracrine manner.125 Exogenous exposure of intestinal epithelial cells to
NSP4 allows binding to caveolae, special lipid rafts within the endoplasmic reticulum
(ER) and cell membrane. It specifically binds to caveolin-1, a transmembrane, hairpin
protein unique to these rafts.126,127 Binding to caveolin-1 leads to an increase in
intracellular calcium concentrations by causing the release of calcium from ER stores
and increasing movement across the plasma membrane. This is mediated by
phospholipase C (PLC), which increases the level of intracellular inositol 1,4,5-triphos-
phate (IP3),124,128–130 however intracellular NSP4 causes the release of calcium
independent of the PLC pathway.131
Extracellular and intracellular exposure to NSP4 causes several changes in the
movement of nutrients and water across the epithelium (Fig. 4). Increases in intracel-
lular calcium inhibit the translocation of disaccharidases from the intracellular vesicles
to the luminal surface, decreasing the ability to digest carbohydrates and leading to
maldigestion and exacerbation of the diarrhea.132–134 NSP4 also directly inhibits
sodium glucose cotransporter SGLT1, the primary sodium and glucose cotransporter
that is critical for effective water absorption, significantly contributing to the pathogen-
esis of rotaviral diarrhea.135 The actions of NSP4 better account for the maldigestion
and malabsorption that are seen in rotavirus diarrhea, and is are likely more important
to the pathogenesis than is histologic damage to the epithelium.

Secretory Diarrhea Caused by Rotavirus

NSP4 has also been implicated in causing secretion of chloride through the increase in
intracellular calcium,124 but the importance of this finding is being increasingly
questioned because the increase is relatively mild and only occurs early in the course
of diarrhea.136,137 As previously mentioned, the actions of NSP4 are independent of
CFTR, so the ion channel that is important for this chloride movement is unknown,
and has been hypothesized to be created by NSP4.114,124 An alternate mechanism
that may explain the chloride secretion occurring in rotaviral diarrhea is activation of
the ENS. Pharmacologically inhibiting the ENS dramatically reduces the diarrhea
seen with rotavirus infections, although the mechanism by which the virus activates
ENS-dependent secretion is unknown.42,114,138 Prostaglandins and other inflamma-
tory mediators may also play a role in causing secretion by affecting the ENS,137
similar to other intestinal pathogens such as C parvum.42,70,92 The ENS appears to
play a critical role in rotavirus-induced secretion, but the mechanism responsible for
this effect is unclear.
 Calf Diarrhea 23

Cl- SGLT1 Ca+ Caveolin-1

PLC

Glucose IP3
Na+

NSP4

Rotavirus Ca+

Disaccharidases

Enteric nerve

Fig. 4. Once rotavirus replicates in an intestinal epithelial cell, the enterotoxin NSP4 is pro-
duced. It has autocrine effects by causing calcium (Ca) release from the endoplasmic reticu-
lum. NSP4 has paracrine effects by being secreted and binding to caveolin-1. This activates
PLC, which increases cytoplasmic IP3. IP3 increases intracellular calcium by increasing release
from the endoplasmic reticulum and increasing calcium movement across the luminal mem-
brane. The increased intracellular calcium inhibits movement of disaccharidases to the lumi-
nal surface. NSP4 directly inhibits the SGLT1 which decreases the absorption of sodium (Na)
and glucose, and increases chloride (Cl) secretion by an unknown mechanism, but may in-
volve a channel created by NSP4. NSP4 also activates the enteric nervous system by an un-
known mechanism.

Treatment and Control of Rotavirus Diarrhea

Treatment of rotavirus diarrhea is focused solely on rehydration because there are no
currently available pharmacologic methods of controlling the infection in calves.
Whereas the inhibition of SGLT1 and subsequent decrease in sodium and glucose
absorption mediated by NSP4 would theoretically make sodium- and glucose-con-
taining oral rehydration solutions less effective, this has not been shown clinically or
experimentally. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend
a low-osmolality rehydration solution that contains sodium and glucose for children
with acute gastroenteritis. This recommendation is irrespective of the cause, yet
rotavirus is likely involved in a majority of the cases.139 Similar fluids would be
expected to be effective in rehydrating calves with rotaviral diarrhea as well.
Enhancing colostral antibody transfer to the calf from the dam appears to be the
most effective method of control for rotaviral diarrhea in calves. First, proper
24 Foster & Smith

colostrum management is critical to ensure that an adequate IgG mass is delivered to

each calf. This can be enhanced by administering vaccines to cows in the dry period to
increase the amount of rotavirus-specific antibodies in the colostrum.140 Experimental
evidence has shown these vaccines to be effective at decreasing clinical signs;141–144
however, some authors feel that the commercial vaccines are not as effective clini-
cally.145 There appears to be protection initially that is caused by the presence of spe-
cific antibodies in the intestinal lumen, but immunity in subsequent weeks is
dependent on the resecretion of IgG into the intestine.142 Oral vaccination of the
calves at birth has been found to be less successful, and is not recommended.145 Sim-
ilar to other gastrointestinal pathogens, reducing exposure is also critical for control of
rotaviral diarrhea in calves. Therefore, appropriate housing, stocking density, and hy-
giene cannot be ignored.

CORONAVIRUS

The epidemiology and pathophysiology of coronavirus diarrhea in calves overlaps

significantly with that caused by rotavirus. Antibodies to coronavirus are ubiquitous
in cattle,146 and the virus is frequently found in both normal and diarrheic feces of
calves.147 Coronavirus typically affects calves with the first 3 weeks of life, and
peak incidence occurs between days 7 and 10. The virus is ingested from the environ-
ment, which is contaminated by other calves or adult cattle.115,148 Clinical signs begin
approximately 2 days later and continue for 3 to 6 days.148,149 Diarrhea secondary to
coronavirus is mainly caused by intestinal epithelial cell loss and malabsorption. This
virus has also been implicated in respiratory disease outbreaks in older calves as well
as a diarrheal disease of adult cattle (winter dysentery), but discussion of these
syndromes is beyond the scope of this report.

Malabsorptive Diarrhea Caused by Coronavirus

Coronavirus infection begins in the proximal small intestine, but then usually spreads
throughout the jejunum, ileum, and colon. Initially, the virus attaches to the enterocyte
via the spike and hemagglutinin glycoproteins, which also allow fusion of the viral
envelope with the cell membrane or endocytotic vesicles.148,150–152 Once in the cell,
the virus replicates and is released using normal secretory mechanisms and upon
cell death.148,153 Diarrhea begins at the time of virus entry into the cell (before cell
death occurs), but it is unknown if this is the result of secretion, malabsorption, or
both.115
Infected cell loss is significant by 2 days after onset of diarrhea, and villous blunting
occurs. The mature villous epithelial cells are the primary target for the virus, but crypt
enterocytes are also affected.154,155 As in rotavirus and C parvum infections,
maldigestion and malabsorption lead to diarrhea. Because the crypt enterocytes
and the colonocytes can be affected by coronavirus, the clinical signs often have a lon-
ger duration.149,154

Treatment and Control of Coronavirus Diarrhea

Like rotavirus diarrhea, there are no specific treatment methods for coronavirus
infections, and little research has been done to confirm specific control measures
for coronavirus in calves. Oral electrolyte solutions should be provided to prevent
dehydration and treat acidosis. Methods aimed at controlling rotavirus infections
(proper housing and hygiene, good colostrum management, and dry cow vaccination)
are believed to be the best measures for control of coronavirus as well. Furthermore,
 Calf Diarrhea 25

most dry cow vaccinations targeted for neonatal calf diarrhea contain both rotavirus
and coronavirus.

OTHER CAUSES OF INFECTIOUS DIARRHEA IN NEONATAL CALVES

Salmonella is the other major infectious cause of diarrhea in calves, but it is discussed
in a separate article in this issue. A few other minor causes of diarrhea in calves are
worth brief discussion.

Attaching and Effacing E coli

In addition to ETEC, there are several other types of E coli that are potential pathogens
in calves, and these fall into the broad category of attaching and effacing E coli. These
bacteria are characterized by the presence of the eae gene,156 which encodes the
protein intimin, a key component of the outer membrane that mediates attachment
to the intestinal epithelium.157 If these bacteria do not secrete any enterotoxins,
they are classified as enterpathogenic E coli (EPEC).157 EPEC organisms attach to
the epithelium, disrupt the microvilli, and cause malabsorption.158 They also use
a Type III secretory protein to inject effector proteins into the host cell, inducing a se-
cretory response by an undefined mechanism. Furthermore, they disrupt tight junc-
tions between epithelial cells and lead to inflammation; all of which contribute to
diarrhea.159 The importance of EPEC as a pathogen of calves is debatable. It can
be found in abnormal fecal samples, but is also frequently found in healthy calves160
or not found at all.161
Enterohemorrhagic E coli (EHEC) are typically defined as expressing the eae gene
and Shiga toxin. Strains that lack eae but secrete Shiga toxin are designated
STEC.162 Shiga toxin mediates many of the systemic effects that are seen in humans
with E coli O157:H7 infections, and may cause some intestinal damage in some
species.158 Many epidemiological studies have shown that EHEC and STEC are
commonly found in calves with normal and abnormal feces, and there is significant
interest in these bacteria from the public health standpoint.160,161,163–166 However,
Shiga toxin receptors cannot be found in the intestine of calves or adult cattle, and
no diarrhea was seen following experimental infection,167 calling into question claims
that these bacteria are pathogens of calves.

Clostridium difficile
Diarrhea caused by Clostridium difficile appears to be an emerging problem in both
humans and veterinary patients. Diarrhea caused by C difficile is mediated by bacterial
toxins that lead to epithelial cell death, damage to epithelial cell tight junctions,
inflammation of the mucosa and submucosa, and activation of the ENS.168 C difficile
and its toxins can be found in the feces of both normal and diarrheic calves,169–172 but
its role as a pathogen has not been clearly established. Purified toxins will cause
epithelial damage and an increase in luminal fluid in a calf intestinal loop model,169
however experimental infection has not been successful.172

Giardia
Giardia organisms can be found in the feces of calves with diarrhea throughout the
world, but is also commonly found in the feces of normal calves.58,59,66,173–182
Some of these studies also found other pathogens along with Giardia, and none
were controlled experiments. Only a single study has documented attempted
experimental infection of calves with Giardia. In that study, histologic changes were
found in only 2 of 12 calves, clinical signs were simply described as not severe, and
26 Foster & Smith

the incidence of diarrhea was not reported.183 Giardia has been documented to cause
villous atrophy in naturally infected calves,184 and is known to cause a malabsorptive
diarrhea in other species.185,186 Therefore, some have proposed that it may not be
a significant cause of disease, but could still negatively impact calf growth.55 This
has also not been experimentally proven. Although Giardia is commonly found in
the feces of both dairy and beef calves, it is unknown if it is truly a pathogen.

Torovirus
In the early 1980s, an infectious agent similar to coronavirus was identified in a herd of
beef cattle in Iowa.187 It was initially named Breda virus, but has subsequently been
renamed torovirus. Since that time, it has been identified in both beef and dairy calves
throughout the world, and 94% of adult cattle are seropositive.188 Torovirus is found in
calves with normal and abnormal feces, but is isolated more frequently in diarrheic
feces. The incidence in calves with diarrhea ranged from 5% to 35%, while it was
never isolated from more than 12% of normal calves. Other pathogens were
commonly, but not always, found in conjunction with torovirus, but none appeared
to be consistently associated with torovirus infection.189–193 After ingestion, the virus
infects the epithelium of the distal half of the jejunum, the ileum, and colon. Histopath-
ologic lesions in experimental infections include necrosis of the crypt and villous
enterocytes and villous atrophy, but infection does not consistently lead to clinical
signs or histologic damage.187,194,195 Although it has not been conclusively shown,
these lesions would be expected to lead to a malabsorptive diarrhea. There is no
specific information on control of torovirus, but as with other viruses, proper housing,
decreasing exposure to adult cattle, and good hygiene are likely important to prevent
its spread.

SUMMARY

Pathophysiologic mechanisms of infectious diarrhea in calves can be generally

divided into malabsorptive/maldigestive, secretory, or both, and research into these
mechanisms at the cellular level may ultimately lead to more specific control and
treatment methods. Currently, most information must be extrapolated from other
research models because calves are not commonly used. Further elucidation of the
mechanisms by which these pathogens affect calves is critical because diarrhea is
a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in both dairy and beef cattle.

REFERENCES

1. NAHMS. Reference of 1997 beef cow-calf production management and disease

control. USDA survey 1998.
2. NAHMS. Dairy heifer morbidity, mortality, and health management focusing on
preweaned heifers. USDA survey 1994.
3. Acres SD. Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli infections in newborn calves: a
review. J Dairy Sci 1985;68(1):229–56.
4. Acres SD, Saunders JR, Radostits OM. Acute undifferentiated neonatal diarrhea
of beef calves: the prevalence of enterotoxigenic E. coli, reo-like (rota) virus and
other enteropathogens in cow-calf herds. Can Vet J 1977;18(5):113–21.
5. Sherwood D, Snodgrass DR, Lawson GH. Prevalence of enterotoxigenic
Escherichia coli in calves in Scotland and northern England. Vet Rec 1983;
113(10):208–12.
 Calf Diarrhea 27

6. Myers LL, Guinee PA. Occurrence and characteristics of enterotoxigenic

Escherichia coli isolated from calves with diarrhea. Infect Immun 1976;13(4):
1117–9.
7. Smith HW. The development of the flora of the alimentary tract in young animals.
J Pathol Bacteriol 1965;90(2):495–513.
8. Smith HW. Observations on the flora of the alimentary tract of animals and factors
affecting its composition. J Pathol Bacteriol 1965;89:95–122.
9. Hadad JJ, Gyles CL. The role of K antigens of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli
in colonization of the small intestine of calves. Can J Comp Med 1982;46(1):21–6.
10. Hadad JJ, Gyles CL. Scanning and transmission electron microscopic study
of the small intestine of colostrum-fed calves infected with selected strains of
Escherichia coli. Am J Vet Res 1982;43(1):41–9.
11. Holland RE. Some infectious causes of diarrhea in young farm animals. Clin
Microbiol Rev 1990;3(4):345–75.
12. Mainil JG, Bex F, Jacquemin E, et al. Prevalence of four enterotoxin (STaP, STaH,
STb, and LT) and four adhesin subunit (K99, K88, 987P, and F41) genes among
Escherichia coli isolates from cattle. Am J Vet Res 1990;51(2):187–90.
13. Shin SJ, Chang YF, Timour M, et al. Hybridization of clinical Escherichia coli
isolates from calves and piglets in New York State with gene probes for
enterotoxins (STaP, STb, LT), Shiga-like toxins (SLT-1, SLT-II) and adhesion
factors (K88, K99, F41, 987P). Vet Microbiol 1994;38(3):217–25.
14. Francis DH, Allen SD, White RD. Influence of bovine intestinal fluid on the
expression of K99 pili by Escherichia coli. Am J Vet Res 1989;50(6):822–6.
15. Mylrea PJ. Functioning of the digestive tract of young fasted calves. Res Vet Sci
1968;9(1):1–4.
16. Mylrea PJ. Gastro-intestinal disorders and the functioning of the digestive tract
of young calves. Res Vet Sci 1968;9(1):14–28.
17. Smith HW. Observations on the aetiology of neonatal diarrhoea (scours) in
calves. J Pathol Bacteriol 1962;84:147–68.
18. Constable PD. Pathophysiology of calf diarrhea: new concepts. Presented at the
ACVIM Forum Proceedings. Charlotte, NC, June 3–7, 2003.
19. Runnels PL, Moon HW, Schneider RA. Development of resistance with host age
to adhesion of K991 Escherichia coli to isolated intestinal epithelial cells. Infect
Immun 1980;28(1):298–300.
20. Pearson GR, Logan EF. The pathogenesis of enteric colibacillosis in neonatal
unsuckled calves. Vet Rec 1979;105(8):159–64.
21. Argenzio RA. Pathophysiology of neonatal calf diarrhea. Vet Clin North Am Food
Anim Pract 1985;1(3):461–9.
22. Field M, Semrad CE. Toxigenic diarrheas, congenital diarrheas, and cystic
fibrosis: disorders of intestinal ion transport. Annu Rev Physiol 1993;55:631–55.
23. Mainil JG, Moseley SL, Schneider RA, et al. Hybridization of bovine Escherichia
coli isolates with gene probes for four enterotoxins (STaP, STaH, STb, LT) and
one adhesion factor (K99). Am J Vet Res 1986;47(5):1145–8.
24. Acosta-Martinez F, Gyles CL, Butler DG. Escherichia coli heat-stable enterotoxin
in feces and intestines of calves with diarrhea. Am J Vet Res 1980;41(7):1143–9.
25. Saeed AM, Magnuson NS, Gay CC, et al. Characterization of heat-stable entero-
toxin from a hypertoxigenic Escherichia coli strain that is pathogenic for cattle.
Infect Immun 1986;53(2):445–7.
26. Giannella RA, Mann EA. E. coli heat-stable enterotoxin and guanylyl cyclase C:
new functions and unsuspected actions. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 2003;
114:67–85 [discussion: 85–6].
28 Foster & Smith

27. Dreyfus LA, Robertson DC. Solubilization and partial characterization of the
intestinal receptor for Escherichia coli heat-stable enterotoxin. Infect Immun
1984;46(2):537–43.
28. Krause WJ, Cullingford GL, Freeman RH, et al. Distribution of heat-stable
enterotoxin/guanylin receptors in the intestinal tract of man and other mammals.
J Anat 1994;184(Pt 2):407–17.
29. Al-Majali AM, Asem EK, Lamar CH, et al. Studies on the mechanism of diarrhoea
induced by Escherichia coli heat-stable enterotoxin (STa) in newborn calves. Vet
Res Commun 2000;24(5):327–38.
30. Al-Majali AM, Asem EK, Lamar CH, et al. Characterization of the interaction of
Escherichia coli heat-stable enterotoxin (STa) with its putative receptor on the
intestinal tract of newborn calves. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2000;28(2):
97–104.
31. al-Majali AM, Robinson JP, Asem EK, et al. Age-dependent variation in the
density and affinity of Escherichia coli heat-stable enterotoxin receptors in
mice. Adv Exp Med Biol 1999;473:137–45.
32. Jaso-Friedmann L, Dreyfus LA, Whipp SC, et al. Effect of age on activation of
porcine intestinal guanylate cyclase and binding of Escherichia coli heat-stable
enterotoxin (STa) to porcine intestinal cells and brush border membranes. Am
J Vet Res 1992;53(12):2251–8.
33. Golin-Bisello F, Bradbury N, Ameen N, et al. STa and cGMP stimulate
translocation to the surface of villus enterocytes in rat jejunum and is regulated
by protein kinase G. Am J Physiol, Cell Physiol 2005;289(3):C708–16.
34. Thiagarajah JR, Broadbent T, Hsieh E, et al. Prevention of toxin-induced intesti-
nal ion and fluid secretion by a small-molecule CFTR inhibitor. Gastroenterology
2004;126(2):511–9.
35. Sellers ZM, Childs D, Chow JY, et al. Heat-stable enterotoxin of Escherichia coli
stimulates a non-CFTR-mediated duodenal bicarbonate secretory pathway. Am
J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2005;288(4):G654–63.
36. Tantisira MH. Effects of heat-stable Escherichia coli enterotoxin on intestinal
alkaline secretion and transepithelial potential difference in the rat intestines in
vivo. Scand J Gastroenterol 1990;25(1):19–28.
37. Lucas ML, Thom MM, Bradley JM, et al. Escherichia coli heat stable (STa)
enterotoxin and the upper small intestine: lack of evidence in vivo for net fluid
secretion. J Membr Biol 2005;206(1):29–42.
38. Lucas ML. A reconsideration of the evidence for Escherichia coli STa (heat
stable) enterotoxin-driven fluid secretion: a new view of STa action and a new
paradigm for fluid absorption. J Appl Microbiol 2001;90(1):7–26.
39. Mitchell ID, Tame MJ, Kenworthy R. Conditions for the production of Eschericha
coli enterotoxin in a defined medium. J Med Microbiol 1974;7:395–400.
40. Mourad FH, Nassar CF. Effect of vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP)
antagonism on rat jejunal fluid and electrolyte secretion induced by cholera
and Escherichia coli enterotoxins. Gut 2000;47(3):382–6.
41. Peterson JW, Whipp SC. Comparison of the mechanisms of action of cholera
toxin and the heat-stable enterotoxins of Escherichia coli. Infect Immun 1995;
63(4):1452–61.
42. Jones SL, Blikslager AT. Role of the enteric nervous system in the pathophysiol-
ogy of secretory diarrhea. J Vet Intern Med 2002;16(3):222–8.
43. Lucas ML, Duncan NW, O’Reilly NF, et al. Lack of evidence in vivo for a remote
effect of Escherichia coli heat stable enterotoxin on jejunal fluid absorption.
Neurogastroenterol Motil 2008;20(5):532–8.
 Calf Diarrhea 29

44. Eklund S. The net fluid secretion caused by cyclic 30 50 -guanosine monophos-
phate in the rat jejunum in vivo is mediated by a local nervous reflex. Acta
Physiol Scand 1986;128(1):57–63.
45. Eklund S. The enteric nervous system participates in the secretory response to the
heat stable enterotoxins of Escherichia coli in rats and cats. Neuroscience 1985;
14(2):673–81.
46. Rolfe V, Levin RJ. Enterotoxin Escherichia coli STa activates a nitric oxide-dependent
myenteric plexus secretory reflex in the rat ileum. J Physiol 1994;475(3):531–7.
47. Nzegwu HC, Levin RJ. Role of the enteric nervous system in the maintained
hypersecretion induced by enterotoxin STa in the nutritionally deprived intestine.
Gut 1994;35(9):1237–43.
48. Nzegwu HC, Levin RJ. Fluid hypersecretion induced by enterotoxin STa in
nutritionally deprived rats: jejunal and ileal dynamics in vivo. Exp Physiol 1994;
79(4):547–60.
49. Nzegwu HC, Levin RJ. Neurally maintained hypersecretion in undernourished
rat intestine activated by E. coli STa enterotoxin and cyclic nucleotides in vitro.
J Physiol 1994;479(Pt 1):159–69.
50. Ahmed AF, Constable PD, Misk NA. Effect of feeding frequency and route of
administration on abomasal luminal pH in dairy calves fed milk replacer. J Dairy
Sci 2002;85(6):1502–8.
51. Smith HW, Halls S. Observations by the ligated intestinal segment and oral
inoculation methods on Escherichia coli infections in pigs, calves, lambs and
rabbits. J Pathol Bacteriol 1967;93(2):499–529.
52. Constable PD. Antimicrobial use in the treatment of calf diarrhea. J Vet Intern Med
2004;18(1):8–17.
53. Mosier DA, Oberst RD. Cryptosporidiosis. A global challenge. Ann NY Acad Sci
2000;916:102–11.
54. MacKenzie WR, Schell WL, Blair KA, et al. Massive outbreak of waterborne
cryptosporidium infection in Milwaukee, Wisconsin: recurrence of illness and
risk of secondary transmission. Clin Infect Dis 1995;21(1):57–62.
55. O’Handley RM, Olson ME. Giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis in ruminants. Vet
Clin Food Anim 2006;22(3):623–43.
56. Tzipori S, Ward H. Cryptosporidiosis: biology, pathogenesis and disease.
Microbes Infect 2002;4(10):1047–58.
57. de Graaf DC, Vanopdenbosch E, Ortega-Mora LM, et al. A review of the importance
of cryptosporidiosis in farm animals. Int J Parasitol 1999;29(8):1269–87.
58. O’Handley RM, Cockwill C, McAllister TA, et al. Duration of naturally acquired
giardiosis and cryptosporidiosis in dairy calves and their association with
diarrhea. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999;214(3):391–6.
59. Ralston BJ, McAllister TA, Olson MA. Prevalence and infection pattern of
naturally acquired giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis in range beef calves and
their dams. Vet Parasitol 2003;114(2):113–22.
60. Fayer R, Gasbarre L, Pasquali P, et al. Cryptosporidium parvum infection in
bovine neonates: dynamic clinical, parasitic and immunologic patterns. Int
J Parasitol 1998;28(1):49–56.
61. Santin M, Trout JM, Xiao L, et al. Prevalence and age-related variation of
Cryptosporidium species and genotypes in dairy calves. Vet Parasitol 2004;
122(2):103–17.
62. Langkjaer RB, Vigre H, Enemark HL, et al. Molecular and phylogenetic charac-
terization of Cryptosporidium and Giardia from pigs and cattle in Denmark.
Parasitology 2007;134(Pt 3):339–50.
30 Foster & Smith

63. Harp JA, Woodmansee DB, Moon HW. Resistance of calves to Cryptosporidium
parvum: effects of age and previous exposure. Infect Immun 1990;58(7):2237–40.
64. Argenzio RA, Liacos JA, Levy ML, et al. Villous atrophy, crypt hyperplasia,
cellular infiltration, and impaired glucose-Na absorption in enteric cryptosporid-
iosis of pigs. Gastroenterology 1990;98(5 Pt 1):1129–40.
65. Xiao L, Herd RP. Infection pattern of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in calves. Vet
Parasitol 1994;55(3):257–62.
66. Gow S, Waldner C. An examination of the prevalence of and risk factors for
shedding of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. in cows and calves from
western Canadian cow-calf herds. Vet Parasitol 2006;137(1–2):50–61.
67. Anderson BC. Cryptosporidiosis in bovine and human health. J Dairy Sci 1998;
81(11):3036–41.
68. Tzipori S, Angus KW, Campbell I, et al. Experimental infection of lambs with Cryp-
tosporidium isolated from a human patient with diarrhoea. Gut 1982;23(1):71–4.
69. Heine J, Pohlenz JF, Moon HW, et al. Enteric lesions and diarrhea in gnotobiotic
calves monoinfected with Cryptosporidium species. J Infect Dis 1984;150(5):
768–75.
70. Gookin JL, Nordone SK, Argenzio RA. Host responses to Cryptosporidium
infection. J Vet Intern Med 2002;16(1):12–21.
71. Moore R, Tzipori S, Griffiths JK, et al. Temporal changes in permeability and
structure of piglet ileum after site-specific infection by Cryptosporidium parvum.
Gastroenterology 1995;108(4):1030–9.
72. Chen XM, Levine SA, Tietz P, et al. Cryptosporidium parvum is cytopathic for
cultured human biliary epithelia via an apoptotic mechanism. Hepatology
1998;28(4):906–13.
73. Adams RB, Guerrant RL, Zu S, et al. Cryptosporidium parvum infection of
intestinal epithelium: morphologic and functional studies in an in vitro model.
J Infect Dis 1994;169(1):170–7.
74. Laurent F, Eckmann L, Savidge TC, et al. Cryptosporidium parvum infection of
human intestinal epithelial cells induces the polarized secretion of C-X-C
chemokines. Infect Immun 1997;65(12):5067–73.
75. Griffiths JK, Moore R, Dooley S, et al. Cryptosporidium parvum infection of
Caco-2 cell monolayers induces an apical monolayer defect, selectively
increases transmonolayer permeability, and causes epithelial cell death. Infect
Immun 1994;62(10):4506–14.
76. Buret AG, Chin AC, Scott KG. Infection of human and bovine epithelial cells with
Cryptosporidium andersoni induces apoptosis and disrupts tight junctional
ZO-1: effects of epidermal growth factor. Int J Parasitol 2003;33(12):1363–71.
77. Chen XM, Gores GJ, Paya CV, et al. Cryptosporidium parvum induces apoptosis
in biliary epithelia by a Fas/Fas ligand-dependent mechanism. Am J Phys 1999;
277(3 Pt 1):G599–608.
78. Chen XM, Levine SA, Splinter PL, et al. Cryptosporidium parvum activates
nuclear factor kappaB in biliary epithelia preventing epithelial cell apoptosis.
Gastroenterology 2001;120(7):1774–83.
79. McCole DF, Eckmann L, Laurent F, et al. Intestinal epithelial cell apoptosis
following Cryptosporidium parvum infection. Infect Immun 2000;68(3):1710–3.
80. Ojcius DM, Perfettini JL, Bonnin A, et al. Caspase-dependent apoptosis during
infection with Cryptosporidium parvum. Microbes Infect 1999;1(14):1163–8.
81. Motta I, Gissot M, Kanellopoulos JM, et al. Absence of weight loss during
Cryptosporidium infection in susceptible mice deficient in Fas-mediated
apoptosis. Microbes Infect 2002;4(8):821–7.
 Calf Diarrhea 31

82. Widmer G, Corey EA, Stein B, et al. Host cell apoptosis impairs Cryptosporidium
parvum development in vitro. J Parasitol 2000;86(5):922–8.
83. Mele R, Gomez Morales MA, Tosini F, et al. Cryptosporidium parvum at different
developmental stages modulates host cell apoptosis in vitro. Infect Immun 2004;
72(10):6061–7.
84. Argenzio RA, Lecce J, Powell DW. Prostanoids inhibit intestinal NaCl absorption
in experimental porcine cryptosporidiosis. Gastroenterology 1993;104(2):440–7.
85. Argenzio RA, Rhoads JM, Armstrong M, et al. Glutamine stimulates prostaglan-
din-sensitive Na(1)-H1 exchange in experimental porcine cryptosporidiosis.
Gastroenterology 1994;106(6):1418–28.
86. Blikslager A, Hunt E, Guerrant R, et al. Glutamine transporter in crypts compensates
for loss of villus absorption in bovine cryptosporidiosis. Am J Physiol Gastrointest
Liver Physiol 2001;281(3):G645–53.
87. Cole J, Blikslager A, Hunt E, et al. Cyclooxygenase blockade and exogenous
glutamine enhance sodium absorption in infected bovine ileum. Am J Physiol
Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2003;284(3):G516–24.
88. Topouchian A, Huneau JF, Barbot L, et al. Evidence for the absence of an
intestinal adaptive mechanism to compensate for C. parvum-induced amino
acid malabsorption in suckling rats. Parasitol Res 2003;91(3):197–203.
89. Topouchian A, Kapel N, Huneau JF, et al. Impairment of amino-acid absorption
in suckling rats infected with Cryptosporidium parvum. Parasitol Res 2001;
87(11):891–6.
90. Klein P, Kleinova T, Volek Z, et al. Effect of Cryptosporidium parvum infection on
the absorptive capacity and paracellular permeability of the small intestine in
neonatal calves. Vet Parasitol 2008;152(1–2):53–9.
91. Holland RE, Herdt TH, Refsal KR. Pulmonary excretion of H2 in calves with
Cryptosporidium-induced malabsorption. Dig Dis Sci 1989;34(9):1399–404.
92. Argenzio RA, Armstrong M, Rhoads JM. Role of the enteric nervous system in
piglet cryptosporidiosis. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1996;279(3):1109–15.
93. Kandil HM, Berschneider HM, Argenzio RA. Tumour necrosis factor alpha changes
porcine intestinal ion transport through a paracrine mechanism involving prosta-
glandins. Gut 1994;35(7):934–40.
94. Zadrozny LM, Stauffer SH, Armstrong MU, et al. Neutrophils do not mediate the
pathophysiological sequelae of Cryptosporidium parvum infection in neonatal
piglets. Infect Immun 2006;74(10):5497–505.
95. Gookin JL, Chiang S, Alle J, et al. NF-kappaB-mediated expression of iNOS
promotes epithelial defense against infection by Cryptosporidium parvum in
neonatal piglets. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2006;290(1):
G164–74.
96. Gookin JL, Foster DM, Coccaro MR, et al. Oral delivery of L-arginine stimulates
prostaglandin-dependent secretory diarrhea in Cryptosporidium parvum-in-
fected neonatal piglets. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2008;46(2):139–46.
97. Argenzio RA, Armstrong M, Blikslager A, et al. Peptide YY inhibits intestinal
Cl- secretion in experimental porcine cryptosporidiosis through a prostaglan-
din-activated neural pathway. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1997;283(2):692–7.
98. Jarvie BD, Trotz-Williams LA, McKnight DR, et al. Effect of halofuginone lactate
on the occurrence of Cryptosporidium parvum and growth of neonatal dairy
calves. J Dairy Sci 2005;88(5):1801–6.
99. Lallemand M, Villeneuve A, Belda J, et al. Field study of the efficacy of
halofuginone and decoquinate in the treatment of cryptosporidiosis in veal
calves. Vet Rec 2006;159(20):672–6.
32 Foster & Smith

100. Villacorta I, Peeters JE, Vanopdenbosch E, et al. Efficacy of halofuginone lactate

against Cryptosporidium parvum in calves. Antimicrobial Agents Chemother
1991;35(2):283–7.
101. Peeters JE, Villacorta I, Naciri M, et al. Specific serum and local antibody
responses against Cryptosporidium parvum during medication of calves with
halofuginone lactate. Infect Immun 1993;61(10):4440–5.
102. Lefay D, Naciri M, Poirier P, et al. Efficacy of halofuginone lactate in the
prevention of cryptosporidiosis in suckling calves. Vet Rec 2001;148(4):108–12.
103. Naciri M, Mancassola R, Yvore P, et al. The effect of halofuginone lactate on
experimental Cryptosporidium parvum infections in calves. Vet Parasitol 1993;
45(3–4):199–207.
104. Fayer R, Ellis W. Paromomycin is effective as prophylaxis for cryptosporidiosis in
dairy calves. J Parasitol 1993;79(5):771–4.
105. Moore DA, Atwill ER, Kirk JH, et al. Prophylactic use of decoquinate for
infections with Cryptosporidium parvum in experimentally challenged neonatal
calves. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223(6):839–45.
106. Elitok B, Elitok OM, Pulat H. Efficacy of azithromycin dihydrate in treatment of
cryptosporidiosis in naturally infected dairy calves. J Vet Intern Med 2005;
19(4):590–3.
107. Watarai S, Tana, Koiwa M. Feeding activated charcoal from bark containing
wood vinegar liquid (nekka-rich) is effective as treatment for cryptosporidiosis
in calves. J Dairy Sci 2008;91(4):1458–63.
108. de Graaf DC, Spano F, Petry F, et al. Speculation on whether a vaccine against
cryptosporidiosis is a reality or fantasy. Int J Parasitol 1999;29(8):1289–306.
109. Fayer R, Andrews C, Ungar BL, et al. Efficacy of hyperimmune bovine colostrum for
prophylaxis of cryptosporidiosis in neonatal calves. J Parasitol 1989;75(3):393–7.
110. Perryman LE, Kapil SJ, Jones ML, et al. Protection of calves against cryptospo-
ridiosis with immune bovine colostrum induced by a Cryptosporidium parvum
recombinant protein. Vaccine 1999;17(17):2142–9.
111. Harp JA, Goff JP. Protection of calves with a vaccine against Cryptosporidium
parvum. J Parasitol 1995;81(1):54–7.
112. Harp JA, Goff JP. Strategies for the control of Cryptosporidium parvum infection
in calves. J Dairy Sci 1998;81(1):289–94.
113. Harp JA, Jardon P, Atwill ER, et al. Field testing of prophylactic measures
against Cryptosporidium parvum infection in calves in a California dairy herd.
Am J Vet Res 1996;57(11):1586–8.
114. Ramig RF. Pathogenesis of intestinal and systemic rotavirus infection. J Virol
2004;78(19):10213–20.
115. Torres-Medina A, Schlafer DH, Mebus CA. Rotaviral and coronaviral diarrhea.
Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 1985;1(3):471–93.
116. Schlafer DH, Scott FW. Prevalence of neutralizing antibody to the calf rotavirus in
New York cattle. Cornell Vet 1979;69(3):262–71.
117. Chinsangaram J, Schore CE, Guterbock W, et al. Prevalence of group A and
group B rotaviruses in the feces of neonatal dairy calves from California.
Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 1995;18(2):93–103.
118. Theil KW, McCloskey CM. Molecular epidemiology and subgroup determination
of bovine group a rotaviruses associated with diarrhea in dairy and beef calves.
J Clin Microbiol 1989;27(1):126–31.
119. Alfieri AA, Parazzi ME, Takiuchi E, et al. Frequency of group A rotavirus in
diarrhoeic calves in Brazilian cattle herds, 1998–2002. Trop Anim Health Prod
2006;38(7–8):521–6.
 Calf Diarrhea 33

120. Lucchelli A, Lance SE, Bartlett PB, et al. Prevalence of bovine group A rotavirus
shedding among dairy calves in Ohio. Am J Vet Res 1992;53(2):169–74.
121. Ball JM, Tian P, Zeng CQ, et al. Age-dependent diarrhea induced by a rotaviral
nonstructural glycoprotein. Science 1996;272(5258):101–4.
122. Ciarlet M, Estes MK. Interactions between rotavirus and gastrointestinal cells.
Curr Opin Microbiol 2001;4(4):435–41.
123. Morris AP, Estes MK. Microbes and microbial toxins: paradigms for microbial–
mucosal interactions. VIII. Pathological consequences of rotavirus infection
and its enterotoxin. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2001;281(2):
G303–10.
124. Morris AP, Scott JK, Ball JM, et al. NSP4 elicits age-dependent diarrhea and
Ca(21)mediated I(-) influx into intestinal crypts of CF mice. Am J Physiol
1999;277(2 Pt 1):G431–44.
125. Zhang M, Zeng CQ, Morris AP, et al. A functional NSP4 enterotoxin peptide
secreted from rotavirus-infected cells. J Virol 2000;74(24):11663–70.
126. Parr RD, Storey SM, Mitchell DM, et al. The rotavirus enterotoxin NSP4 directly
interacts with the caveolar structural protein caveolin-1. J Virol 2006;80(6):
2842–54.
127. Storey SM, Gibbons TF, Williams CV, et al. Full-length, glycosylated NSP4 is lo-
calized to plasma membrane caveolae by a novel raft isolation technique. J Virol
2007;81(11):5472–83.
128. Dong Y, Zeng CQ, Ball JM, et al. The rotavirus enterotoxin NSP4 mobilizes intra-
cellular calcium in human intestinal cells by stimulating phospholipase C–medi-
ated inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate production. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997;
94(8):3960–5.
129. Brunet JP, Cotte-Laffitte J, Linxe C, et al. Rotavirus infection induces an increase
in intracellular calcium concentration in human intestinal epithelial cells: role in
microvillar actin alteration. J Virol 2000;74(5):2323–32.
130. Brunet JP, Jourdan N, Cotte-Laffitte J, et al. Rotavirus infection induces cytoskel-
eton disorganization in human intestinal epithelial cells: implication of an
increase in intracellular calcium concentration. J Virol 2000;74(22):10801–6.
131. Berkova Z, Morris AP, Estes MK. Cytoplasmic calcium measurement in rotavirus
enterotoxin-enhanced green fluorescent protein (NSP4-EGFP) expressing cells
loaded with Fura-2. Cell Calcium 2003;34(1):55–68.
132. Collins J, Candy DC, Starkey WG, et al. Disaccharidase activities in small
intestine of rotavirus-infected suckling mice: a histochemical study. J Pediatr
Gastroenterol Nutr 1990;11(3):395–403.
133. Jourdan N, Brunet JP, Sapin C, et al. Rotavirus infection reduces sucrase–iso-
maltase expression in human intestinal epithelial cells by perturbing protein
targeting and organization of microvillar cytoskeleton. J Virol 1998;72(9):
7228–36.
134. Martin-Latil S, Cotte-Laffitte J, Beau I, et al. A cyclic AMP protein kinase A–de-
pendent mechanism by which rotavirus impairs the expression and enzyme
activity of brush border–associated sucrase–isomaltase in differentiated
intestinal Caco-2 cells. Cell Microbiol 2004;6(8):719–31.
135. Halaihel N, Lievin V, Ball JM, et al. Direct inhibitory effect of rotavirus NSP4(114–
135) peptide on the Na(1)-D-glucose symporter of rabbit intestinal brush bor-
der membrane. J Virol 2000;74(20):9464–70.
136. Lorrot M, Benhamadouche-Casari H, Vasseur M. Mechanisms of net chloride
secretion during rotavirus diarrhea in young rabbits: do intestinal villi secrete
chloride? Cell Physiol Biochem 2006;18(1-3):103–12.
34 Foster & Smith

137. Lorrot M, Vasseur M. How do the rotavirus NSP4 and bacterial enterotoxins lead
differently to diarrhea? Virol J 2007;4:31–7.
138. Lundgren O, Peregrin AT, Persson K, et al. Role of the enteric nervous system in the
fluid and electrolyte secretion of rotavirus diarrhea. Science 2000;287(5452):491–5.
139. King CK. Managing acute gastroenteritis among children: oral rehydration, main-
tenance, and nutritional therapy. MMWR Recomm Rep 2003;52(RR-16):1–16.
140. Kohara J. Enhancement of passive immunity with maternal vaccine against
newborn calf diarrhea. J Vet Med Sci 1997;59(11):1023–5.
141. Fernandez FM, Conner ME, Hodgins DC, et al. Passive immunity to bovine
rotavirus in newborn calves fed colostrum supplements from cows immunized
with recombinant SA11 rotavirus core-like particle (CLP) or virus-like particle
(VLP) vaccines. Vaccine 1998;16(5):507–16.
142. Parreno V, Bejar C, Vagnozzi A, et al. Modulation by colostrum-acquired
maternal antibodies of systemic and mucosal antibody responses to rotavirus
in calves experimentally challenged with bovine rotavirus. Vet Immunol
Immunopathol 2004;100(1-2):7–24.
143. Saif LJ, Smith KL. Enteric viral infections of calves and passive immunity. J Dairy
Sci 1985;68(1):206–28.
144. Cornaglia EM. Reduction in morbidity due to diarrhea in nursing beef calves by
use of an inactivated oil-adjuvanted rotavirus–Escherichia coli vaccine in the
dam. Vet Microbiol 1992;30(2-3):191–202.
145. Radostits OM, Gay CC, Blood DC, et al. Viral diarrhea in calves, lambs, kids,
piglets, and foals. In: Veterinary medicine: a textbook of the diseases of cattle,
sheep, pigs, goats, and horses. 9th edition. New York: WB Saunders and Co,
LTD; 1999. p. 1115.
146. Rodak L, Babiuk LA, Acres SD. Detection by radioimmunoassay and enzyme-
linked immunosorbent assay of coronavirus antibodies in bovine serum and
lacteal secretions. J Clin Microbiol 1982;16(1):34–40.
147. Snodgrass DR, Terzolo HR, Sherwood D, et al. Aetiology of diarrhoea in young
calves. Vet Rec 1986;119(2):31–4.
148. Clark MA. Bovine coronavirus. Br Vet J 1993;149(1):51–70.
149. Lewis LD. Pathophysiologic changes due to coronavirus-induced diarrhea in the
calf. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1978;173(5 Pt 2):636–42.
150. Schultze B, Gross HJ, Brossmer R, et al. The S protein of bovine coronavirus is
a hemagglutinin recognizing 9-O-acetylated sialic acid as a receptor
determinant. J Virol 1991;65(11):6232–7.
151. Schultze B, Wahn K, Klenk HD, et al. Isolated HE-protein from hemagglutinating
encephalomyelitis virus and bovine coronavirus has receptor-destroying and
receptor-binding activity. Virology 1991;180(1):221–8.
152. Payne HR, Storz J, Henk WG. Initial events in bovine coronavirus infection:
analysis through immunogold probes and lysosomotropic inhibitors. Arch Virol
1990;114(3–4):175–89.
153. Payne HR, Storz J. Scanning electron microscopic characterization of bovine
coronavirus plaques in HRT cells. Zentralbl Veterinarmed B 1990;37(7):501–8.
154. Storz J, Doughri AM, Hajer I. Coronaviral morphogenesis and ultrastructural changes
in intestinal infections of calves. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1978;173(5 Pt 2):633–5.
155. Park SJ, Kim GY, Choy HE, et al. Dual enteric and respiratory tropisms of winter
dysentery bovine coronavirus in calves. Arch Virol 2007;152(10):1885–900.
156. Moon HW, Whipp SC, Argenzio RA, et al. Attaching and effacing activities of
rabbit and human enteropathogenic Escherichia coli in pig and rabbit intestines.
Infect Immun 1983;41(3):1340–51.
 Calf Diarrhea 35

157. Donnenberg MS, Kaper JB. Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli. Infect Immun
1992;60(10):3953–61.
158. Nataro JP, Kaper JB. Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli. Clin Microbiol Rev 1998;
11(1):142–201.
159. Hecht G. Microbes and microbial toxins: paradigms for microbial–mucosal
interactions. VII. Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli: physiological alterations from
an extracellular position. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2001;281(1):G1–7.
160. Holland RE, Wilson RA, Holland MS, et al. Characterization of eae1 Escherichia
coli isolated from healthy and diarrheic calves. Vet Microbiol 1999;66(4):251–63.
161. Wieler LH, Sobjinski G, Schlapp T, et al. Longitudinal prevalence study of
diarrheagenic Escherichia coli in dairy calves. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr
2007;120(7–8):296–306.
162. Levine MM. Escherichia coli that cause diarrhea: enterotoxigenic, enteropatho-
genic, enteroinvasive, enterohemorrhagic, and enteroadherent. J Infect Dis
1987;155(3):377–89.
163. Leomil L, Aidar-Ugrinovich L, Guth BE, et al. Frequency of shiga toxin–produc-
ing Escherichia coli (STEC) isolates among diarrheic and non-diarrheic calves in
Brazil. Vet Microbiol 2003;97(1–2):103–9.
164. Lee JH, Hur J, Stein BD. Occurrence and characteristics of enterohemorrhagic
Escherichia coli O26 and O111 in calves associated with diarrhea. Vet J 2008;
176(2):205–9.
165. Kang SJ, Ryu SJ, Chae JS, et al. Occurrence and characteristics of enterohe-
morrhagic Escherichia coli O157 in calves associated with diarrhoea. Vet
Microbiol 2004;98(3–4):323–8.
166. Osek J, Gallien P, Protz D. Characterization of shiga toxin–producing
Escherichia coli strains isolated from calves in Poland. Comp Immunol Microbiol
Infect Dis 2000;23(4):267–76.
167. Pruimboom-Brees IM, Morgan TW, Ackermann MR, et al. Cattle lack vascular re-
ceptors for Escherichia coli O157:H7 Shiga toxins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2000;97(19):10325–9.
168. Keel MK, Songer JG. The comparative pathology of Clostridium difficile–associ-
ated disease. Vet Pathol 2006;43(3):225–40.
169. Hammitt MC, Bueschel DM, Keel MK, et al. A possible role for Clostridium
difficile in the etiology of calf enteritis. Vet Microbiol 2008;127(3–4):343–52.
170. Keel K, Brazier JS, Post KW, et al. Prevalence of PCR ribotypes among
Clostridium difficile isolates from pigs, calves, and other species. J Clin
Microbiol 2007;45(6):1963–4.
171. Rodriguez-Palacios A, Stampfli HR, Duffield T, et al. Clostridium difficile PCR
ribotypes in calves, Canada. Emerging Infect Dis 2006;12(11):1730–6.
172. Rodriguez-Palacios A, Stampfli HR, Stalker M, et al. Natural and experimental
infection of neonatal calves with Clostridium difficile. Vet Microbiol 2007;
124(1–2):166–72.
173. Bjorkman C, Svensson C, Christensson B, et al. Cryptosporidium parvum and Giar-
dia intestinalis in calf diarrhoea in Sweden. Acta Vet Scand 2003;44(3–4):145–52.
174. Huetink RE, van der Giessen JW, Noordhuizen JP, et al. Epidemiology of
Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia duodenalis on a dairy farm. Vet Parasitol
2001;102(1–2):53–67.
175. Xiao L, Herd RP, Rings DM. Concurrent infections of Giardia and Cryptosporidium
on two Ohio farms with calf diarrhea. Vet Parasitol 1993;51(1–2):41–8.
176. St Jean G, Couture Y, Dubreuil P, et al. Diagnosis of Giardia infection in 14
calves. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1987;191(7):831–2.
36 Foster & Smith

177. Geurden T, Geldhof P, Levecke B, et al. Mixed Giardia duodenalis assemblage

A and E infections in calves. Int J Parasitol 2008;38(2):259–64.
178. Mendonca C, Almeida A, Castro A, et al. Molecular characterization of Crypto-
sporidium and Giardia isolates from cattle from Portugal. Vet Parasitol 2007;
147(1–2):47–50.
179. Becher KA, Robertson ID, Fraser DM, et al. Molecular epidemiology of Giardia
and Cryptosporidium infections in dairy calves originating from three sources in
Western Australia. Vet Parasitol 2004;123(1–2):1–9.
180. Maddox-Hyttel C, Langkjaer RB, Enemark HL, et al. Cryptosporidium and Giar-
dia in different age groups of Danish cattle and pigs–occurrence and manage-
ment associated risk factors. Vet Parasitol 2006;141(1–2):48–59.
181. Matsubayashi M, Kimata I, Abe N. Identification of genotypes of Giardia intes-
tinalis isolates from a human and calf in Japan. J Vet Med Sci 2005;67(3):
337–40.
182. Smith KE, Stenzel SA, Bender JB, et al. Outbreaks of enteric infections caused
by multiple pathogens associated with calves at a farm day camp. Pediatr Infect
Dis J 2004;23(12):1098–104.
183. Uehlinger FD, O’Handley RM, Greenwood SJ, et al. Efficacy of vaccination in
preventing giardiasis in calves. Vet Parasitol 2007;146(1–2):182–8.
184. Ruest N, Couture Y, Faubert GM, et al. Morphological changes in the jejunum of
calves naturally infected with Giardia spp. and Cryptosporidium spp. Vet
Parasitol 1997;69(3–4):177–86.
185. Buret A, Hardin JA, Olson ME, et al. Pathophysiology of small intestinal
malabsorption in gerbils infected with Giardia lamblia. Gastroenterology 1992;
103(2):506–13.
186. Buret A, Gall DG, Olson ME. Effects of murine giardiasis on growth, intestinal
morphology, and disaccharidase activity. J Parasitol 1990;76(3):403–9.
187. Woode GN, Reed DE, Runnels PL, et al. Studies with an unclassified virus
isolated from diarrheic calves. Vet Microbiol 1982;7(3):221–40.
188. Koopmans M, van den Boom U, Woode G, et al. Seroepidemiology of Breda
virus in cattle using ELISA. Vet Microbiol 1989;19(3):233–43.
189. Duckmanton L, Carman S, Nagy E, et al. Detection of bovine torovirus in fecal
specimens of calves with diarrhea from Ontario farms. J Clin Microbiol 1998;
36(5):1266–70.
190. Hoet AE, Nielsen PR, Hasoksuz M, et al. Detection of bovine torovirus and other
enteric pathogens in feces from diarrhea cases in cattle. J Vet Diagn Invest
2003;15(3):205–12.
191. Hoet AE, Smiley J, Thomas C, et al. Association of enteric shedding of bovine
torovirus (Breda virus) and other enteropathogens with diarrhea in veal calves.
Am J Vet Res 2003;64(4):485–90.
192. Kirisawa R, Takeyama A, Koiwa M, et al. Detection of bovine torovirus in fecal
specimens of calves with diarrhea in Japan. J Vet Med Sci 2007;69(5):471–6.
193. Haschek B, Klein D, Benetka V, et al. Detection of bovine torovirus in neonatal
calf diarrhoea in Lower Austria and Styria (Austria). J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet
Public Health 2006;53(4):160–5.
194. Fagerland JA, Pohlenz JF, Woode GN. A morphological study of the replication
of Breda virus (proposed family Toroviridae) in bovine intestinal cells. J Gen Virol
1986;67(Pt 7):1293–304.
195. Pohlenz JF, Cheville NF, Woode GN, et al. Cellular lesions in intestinal mucosa of
gnotobiotic calves experimentally infected with a new unclassified bovine virus
(Breda virus). Vet Pathol 1984;21(4):407–17.